5.0 Mileage

[Spartan]

I have my "Fan Boy" flame shield on so I'm protected.

FYI: Effieciency= How an engine consumes fuel to produce a it's output, it has nothing to do with MPG ratings.

BSFC is the ability for an engine to produce X amount of power from X amount of fuel. The side effect is more HP and Torque, i.e. a very efficient engine. Nothing he said was false, the Boss 302 was/is an extremely efficient engine package as are most racing engines. The '15 5.0 liter is in the same class.

He said efficiency but he also said "so we're improving fuel economy" in the GT. I mean it doesn't get any clearer then that and like Divine said you guys are doing what you can to defend a statement that obviously wasn't taken out of context.

Sponsored

 

[Seabee1973]

I have my "Fan Boy" flame shield on so I'm protected.

FYI: Effieciency= How an engine consumes fuel to produce a it's output, it has nothing to do with MPG ratings.

BSFC is the ability for an engine to produce X amount of power from X amount of fuel. The side effect is more HP and Torque, i.e. a very efficient engine. Nothing he said was false, the Boss 302 was/is an extremely efficient engine package as are most racing engines. The '15 5.0 liter is in the same class.

You are right on[emoji2] I did not see anywhere that Ford said increased mpg... I only saw efficiency... which it did get... friend at work has a 14 GT manual with the track package and he claims he gets about 25 mpg MIXED driving, stays off the toll roads coming from Anna which he takes DNT from 380 down to Addison. I can only imagine what the 2015 will do and will most certainly be better than the 15 mpg I get in my truck coming from Denton.

 

[1320']

He said efficiency but he also said "so we're improving fuel economy" in the GT. I mean it doesn't get any clearer then that and like Divine said you guys are doing what you can to defend a statement that obviously wasn't taken out of context.

What is hoped for or a stated goal in development and what comes off the line are two different things. It is entirely possible that this motor on an engine dyno is more efficient than the previous incarnations of its former selves. However when it is installed in the S 550 it produces the same fuel efficiency outgoing model.

Like many other things its not a black and white issue there are many shades of grey, it's simply the way the world works.

 

[Seabee1973]

Oh I bet some of you would. There's a lot of nits being picked throughout this forum.




It's what Sheldon Cooper would drive, if he ever gets his driver's license.

Lol

 

[DivineStrike]

Tim, SeaBee. He said "we're improving Fuel Economy" in reference to the V8. Which is measured in consumption per distance, other words...mpg's. Keeping defending the lack of improvement in this sector if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that Fuel Economy in the V8 did not improve. Manual is 15-25 and Auto is 16-25. I am glad the manual didn't lose as much as the automatic, which lost 3 mpg's in the city but gets the same on the highway. Manual only lost 1 on the highway.

If, and it's a BIG if, the Manual calculation is based off having PP then yes the manual would have improved. But I doubt PP is included.

Any how, w/ the V8 are any of the final gear ratio's different from the 2014?

 

[Tim Hilliard]

Tim, SeaBee. He said "we're improving Fuel Economy" in reference to the V8. Which is measured in consumption per distance, other words...mpg's. Keeping defending the lack of improvement in sector if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that Fuel Economy in the V8 did not improve. Manual is 15-25 and Auto is 16-25. I am glad the manual didn't lose as much as the automatic, which lost 3 mpg's in the city but gets the same on the highway. Manual only lost 1 on the highway.

If, and it's a BIG if, the Manual calculation is based off having PP then yes the manual would have improved. But I doubt PP is included.

Any how, w/ the V8 are any of the final gear ratio's different from the 2014?

Not to beat a dead horse but did he say "Hey those numbers on the window sticker are going to go up"

Also This is a '14 TP GT. Sticker. 3.73's and all. I don't think it matters.http://services.forddirect.fordvehicles.com/inventory/WindowSticker.pdf?vin=1ZVBP8CF3E5265358

 

[DivineStrike]

Not to beat a dead horse but did he say "Hey those numbers on the window sticker are going to go up"

Also This is a '14 TP GT. Sticker. 3.73's and all. I don't think it matters.http://services.forddirect.fordvehicles.com/inventory/WindowSticker.pdf?vin=1ZVBP8CF3E5265358

Now you're grasping at straws. Fuel Economy = EPA MPG's in regards to manufacturers and their fuel economy claims. The number wouldn't have to go up, but it shouldn't go down if you make a claim like that. Again, like with everyone else who has mentioned it, I hope real world numbers show things more favorably. If they do, I can see Ford just changing the number in the future (once the competition spills it's info) without making any actual changes, if this reduction was just simply them "saying it's lower".

Do we know what percentage of 14 GT Manuals sold got 3.73's and TP? If it's not 33% or greater, then that Window sticker is not including 3.73's into it's calculation.

 

[HGFireHazard]

Now you're grasping at straws. Fuel Economy = EPA MPG's in regards to manufacturers and their fuel economy claims. The number wouldn't have to go up, but it shouldn't go down if you make a claim like that. Again, like with everyone else who has mentioned it, I hope real world numbers show things more favorably. If they do, I can see Ford just changing the number in the future (once the competition spills it's info) without making any actual changes, if this reduction was just simply them "saying it's lower".

Do we know what percentage of 14 GT Manuals sold got 3.73's and TP? If it's not 33% or greater, then that Window sticker is not including 3.73's into it's calculation.

I agree. There seem to be a lot of people letting Ford off the hook. When any average Joe goes to a dealership for any vehicle, he's going to get his mileage info from the sticker. If you tell Joe that the vehicle is more efficient over the previous year, and show him that sticker but has higher numbers, he's going to be confused and angry.

I equate this back to the interview where Dave said the car was going to lose weight. Instead we end up excusing the statement as "he meant the chassis", even though the car gained weight overall. At the very least people will see that as disingenuous and at the worst an outright lie.

Did Dave mean to mislead anyone? I'm sure he didn't, but that doesn't change what was said.

Ultimately, I don't think anyone is arguing this car isn't going to be a stout performer in all forms. It's going to be awesome. However, people want to hear the straight, unfiltered truth about their cars. I would rather hear "we don't comment on future vehicles" ad nauseam than hear something that gets my expectations up that doesn't end up being true.

 

[Seabee1973]

I will admit I am slightly disappointed in no gain in mpg but I wasn't expecting anything substantial... Maybe 1 mpg possibly 2 but a drop of 1 well, not too bad but to think those tests are done in most favorable conditions and on a dyno as I read from their site so actual numbers with cars in their respective environments can be different... better or worse so guess we'll just just have to see the end result.... it is not a game changer for me even though it's a slight increase from my truck but for highway which I am mostly on will be pretty substantial... heck my Audi was only rated to 31mpg with Quattro but I did get better than that...not much but almost 2 mpg.. I am happy with it especially with the increased hp

 

[DivineStrike]

I will admit I am slightly disappointed in no gain in mpg but I wasn't expecting anything substantial... Maybe 1 mpg possibly 2 but a drop of 1 well, not too bad but to think those tests are done in most favorable conditions and on a dyno as I read from their site so actual numbers with cars in their respective environments can be different... better or worse so guess we'll just just have to see the end result.... it is not a game changer for me even though it's a slight increase from my truck but for highway which I am mostly on will be pretty substantial... heck my Audi was only rated to 31mpg with Quattro but I did get better than that...not much but almost 2 mpg.. I am happy with it especially with the increased hp

Agreed, it's not a bad loss for the manual, it's just not progression which is what I would of liked to see. My expectations were the same as yours. I don't really drive the VW around anymore, so with the mustang, my fuel usage will go down from driving the truck. I'll be looking forward to that.

 

[planedoc]

Wtf? The mileage went DOWN? Reminds me of "can keep my doctor, can keep my health care plan"......

 

[planedoc]

I am really gonna miss my 450hp, 24MPG Cummins I sold to order my GT....

 

[alexyardigans]

Wtf? The mileage went DOWN? Reminds me of "can keep my doctor, can keep my health care plan"......

LOL. Must be to get that extra 5-10hp gain <g>

 

[ARS]

Incorrect. EPA standards are no different from 2014 to 2015. Only thing different is Ford decided to lower the mpg's on their own. According to a source who wishes not to be quoted, the downgrade is entirely due to just adjusting the numbers and not due to lack of real efficiency. Basically knee jerk reaction to the Ford MPG fiasco.

I think it's utter nonsense because I haven't seen anyone in the Mustang community complaining they couldn't hit the claimed epa estimates. Actually, i've regularly seen people get better than the stated EPA estimates.

+1 but for anybody that follows the entire Ford line knows of the mpg fiasco where some models were downgraded 6-7 mpg. Cmax and hybrids come to mind but there was 6-7 different models downgraded after Ford got caught . There were legally right and morally wrong and all hell broke loose and Ford had had to refund customers a bunch of money to keep it out of court.

Mustangs were not effected in this mess. THey are going to be ultra conservative from now on and should be after the caper they pulled. This whole"best in class" BS has now stopped and what you are seeing are more realistic numbers for the average guy.

 

[ARS]

+1 but for anybody that follows the entire Ford line knows of the mpg fiasco where some models were downgraded 6-7 mpg. Cmax and hybrids come to mind but there was 6-7 different models downgraded after Ford got caught . There were legally right and morally wrong and all hell broke loose and Ford had had to refund customers a bunch of money to keep it out of court.

Mustangs were not effected in this mess. THey are going to be ultra conservative from now on and should be after the caper they pulled. This whole"best in class" BS has now stopped and what you are seeing are more realistic numbers for the average guy.

All of that said I still want a 302 Ford.

Sponsored